standards meeting · ereps 2 ereps 3 ereps 4 ereps 5 ... more accessible standards e.g. level 3? is...
TRANSCRIPT
5th International Standards Meeting
14-15 October 2014 Amsterdam
#ISM5
More credibility and more development in fitness creden4als at European voca4onal level
Christoffer Andersen, Paolo Casero=, László Zopcsák
Europe Ac4ve Standard Council
Which stakeholder do you want to represent?
• Members/participants/patients
• Health care providers/health care specialists
• Fitness industry
a. Credible for whom? b. credible for what? c. What are we good at/not good at? Do we truly know our DNA?
1. Profiling credibility for the health and fitness sector
Credibility
• Do standards incorporate health care professionals/providers´ “vision”?
• Do we need to create a stronger “bridge” with “health care providers/professionals
2. Need for “a more integrated approach”?
Members/end-users/patients
GPs Ex.
specialists
Health professionals
e.g. physiotherapists
”Parallel approach”
Volunteers
Nutritionists Virtual channels e.g. youtube
Customer/participant/patient
”Integrated approach”
Gps
Nutritionists
Volunteers Health profess.
Ex profess.
• Integrated versus a parallel approach?
• What are the barriers and what are the strengths?
2. Need for “a more integrated approach”?
• Genuine interest for the end-user or ”need of expansion” of the
industry?
• How do we facilitate the cross-profession communications and maintain “our integrity” and “field of action”?
• E.g. primary versus secondary prevention in the health care sector (e.g. physiotherapists: acute phase – ex professional “chronic/permanent phase”. DK - Odense example
3. Conflicting professions: how to get beyond competitive interests?
4. Exercise is Medicine:
• Expansion of our “body image” because of desperate need of
recognition?
• Medicalization of the exercise. Why did we get there?
• Exercise is fun, exercise connects, exercise makes me feel good.
• Does Exercise need to be “medically approved”???
• How can we create a “true job opportunity” for the different
education levels?
• Is there a need for higher level of education in the fitness sector?
• How can we integrate vocational into academic education and create a job profile which has an additional “benefit” (e.g. career, remuneration)
• Vocational training: combine the knowledge: are the standards “too” academic and do not include the experience of the fitness and health care industry? E.g. retention – attrition rate
5. Integration of academic education with vocational education
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fitn
ess
Ass
ista
nt
Aq
ua
Fitn
ess
Inst
ruct
or
Fitn
ess
Inst
ruct
or
Gro
up
Fit
nes
s In
stru
ctor
Per
son
al T
rain
er
Pila
tes
Teac
her
Yog
a te
ach
er
You
th F
itn
ess
inst
ruct
or
Act
ive
Ag
ein
g
Exer
cise
for
Hea
lth
Sp
ecia
list
Pre
Dia
bet
es S
pec
ialis
t
Wei
gh
t M
anag
emen
t S
pec
ialis
t
CP
D T
rain
ing
EREPS 2 EREPS 3 EREPS 4 EREPS 5
NUMBER OF TRAINING PROVIDERS
Main points:
6. More accessible standards e.g. level 3?
Is the bar set too high to be accessible? Are the training providers not able to put together the more advanced courses? Are there fitness professionals willing to pay? Is there a real need from the market at the moment?
7. Standards updating
• Regular standards updating following the new evidence/trends/market
• Renewal of the accreditation certificate through a ”Extra education units (e.g. summer school)
• Does it increase credibility?
6. Standards for “active life-style”?
Is there a need for more ecological standards which take into account people´ life-style? Indoor versus Active life-style customers service not only technical skills (e.g. training theory)